I addressed it by pointing out you are referring to convection. The photons that leave the earth's surface have the exact same energy all the way to infinity, they can't lose energy or cool. The CO2 molecules are made a little warmer by absorbing those photons. It is a small amount of warming since the same molecules release photons in all directions. But before they can release their photons the CO2 molecules are statistically much more likely to bump into a neighboring O2 or N2 molecule and warm it up. Correspondingly all the O2 and N2 molecules will warm CO2 molecules which will then release photons. But the trick is that the photons are released in all directions, some downward, keeping layers beneath warmer than they would be otherwise. Increasing the amount of GHG increases this effect.
More than the saturation point for the CO2? How is that possible?
Good question. There is saturation since the thickness of the atmosphere is much larger than the mean free path. However the satellite picture addresses that nicely. There are very dark clear areas right next to light colored clouded areas. In the dark areas warm ground is radiating IR photons directly to space captured by the satellite sensor. In the clouds immediately next to those clear areas there is significantly less radiation. The difference is that the cloud tops are invariably colder and radiate less IR. But also the clouds are capturing the outdoing IR.
Clouds capture outgoing IR and radiate some back to earth. That is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. CO2 does the same thing with a lot less effectiveness since CO2 has little ability to warm on those clear nights.
And the CO2 is heating the cooled ‘warm surface air’ that has cooled before it made it’s way to the atmosphere?
The amount of surface air that rises has nothing to do with the effectiveness of CO2. However, more convection (rising warm air) does bypass the CO2 / H2O greenhouse.
How much is it heating it up? Enough to cause surface temperatures to change globally? How much warmth is released into the atmosphere compared to the surrounding COLD atmosphere?
Photons captured by CO2 heat to some extent. The quantity is small and a doubling of CO2 lead to less than a 1C increase in the atmosphere globally. The alarmist add a ton of positive feedback to that number (3 or 4 to 1) based upon the theory of more evaporation at surface. (They neglect convection increases).
Would such a small amount be instantly cooled by overwhelming amounts of COLD atmosphere? You state that it instantly warms the atmosphere- but fail to tell us what percentage of the atmosphere is ‘warmed’ and how long that warmth remains before beign overwhelmed by the overwhelming mass of cold atmosphere
If you put energy into the cold atmosphere the atmosphere becomes less cold. (Conservation of energy). The only quantity I can state is the theory above about a doubling of CO2. But we don't even know if there are negative or positive feedbacks, so there is lots of uncertainty about the ultimate effect.
Actually global warming alarmists dispute it,
No they do not. They simply add a clause that CO2 also warms the earth. They are correct that warming increases CO2 (small amounts, see chart above). They are correct that CO2 increases global warmth, subject to feedbacks and uncertainties. Most also acknowledge that "runaway" warming is impossible although a few nutcases say it is possible. But it is obviously impossible since the planet has had far higher CO2 levels and never had runaway warming. Therefore the warming from CO2 must (1) be small and (2) diminish with increasing amounts of CO2. Those are both true.
CO2 is heavier than air. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean, wherein the plants use it to change CO2 into food through photosynthesis.
Were it not so, all plant life on earth would die, because without CO2, plants cannot live. If all the CO2 went up into the upper atmosphere, the plants would not be able to access it.
You should see the places these idiots put sampling tubes for CO2. Then they get the hockey-stick thing. It’s just crap - pure fraud. Nothing more.
To be anti-CO2 is to be anti-plant. Vegans everywhere should be up in arms at the hucksters selling AGM.
[[The difference is that the cloud tops are invariably colder and radiate less IR. But also the clouds are capturing the outdoing IR.]]
A very small portion of outgoing IR- most escapes, much is radiated out toward space- some is radiate back
[[CO2 does the same thing with a lot less effectiveness]]
and much less effectively than clouds because there simply is nowhere near enough CO2 in atmosphere to cause anything on a global scale
[[Photons captured by CO2 heat to some extent. The quantity is small and a doubling of CO2 lead to less than a 1C increase in the atmosphere globally.]]
And you know this 1 degree increase would be due to CO2 and not some other factors how? Based on charts that show warming has happened? If so as stated before, warming happens first, then COI@ rises- so how is warming of atmosphere being linked to CO2 when clearly other factors have caused the warming?
Basically the warmists are disingenuously claiming “Warming has occurred, CO2 is increasing, therefore, man is causing warming- that would be like me stating that because I pissed I n the ocean during a massive global rainstorm that it caused massive worldwide flooding- my pissing I n the ocean doesn’t amount to a pisshole I n the snow in terms of global consequences no more so than adding 3.4% CO2 to the equally inconsequential total atmospheric CO2 level of 0.04% causes global warming